{
  "id": 2851195,
  "name": "Lyman W. Rogers for use of Edward J. Ader, Appellee, v. Charles E. Rollins and Archibald O. Burdick, Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rogers ex rel. Ader v. Rollins",
  "decision_date": "1914-02-04",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 18,438",
  "first_page": "153",
  "last_page": "154",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 153"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 3574,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "sha256": "d209ae849ad8e00b8d3dc1b848b9138b9d6c2a1e0e56822e99e8d3fc8424c3e6",
    "simhash": "1:5b71ca8c173872de",
    "word_count": 610
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:43:38.716309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lyman W. Rogers for use of Edward J. Ader, Appellee, v. Charles E. Rollins and Archibald O. Burdick, Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Graves\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Graves"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. S. Johnson, for appellants.",
      "Frtedmah & Ader, for appellee; J. W. Merriam, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lyman W. Rogers for use of Edward J. Ader, Appellee, v. Charles E. Rollins and Archibald O. Burdick, Appellants.\nGen. No. 18,438.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. William F. Slates, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1912.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed February 4, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Lyman W. Bogers for the use of Edward J. Ader against Charles E. Bollins and Archibald O. Burdick to recover for money paid by an insurance company to defendants as its agents for the purpose of adjusting a loss of an automobile which was insured in the name of Bogers, the nominal plaintiff, as the owner thereof. The insurance was taken out by a \u201cbinding receipt\u201d issued pending the delivery of the policy and the automobile was destroyed by fire before the policy was delivered. After the loss occurred, Bogers assigned his interest in the insurance money to Ader, to whom the defendants refused to pay over the money. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff for nine hundred dollars, defendants appeal.\nW. S. Johnson, for appellants.\nFrtedmah & Ader, for appellee; J. W. Merriam, of counsel.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Assumpsit, action of, \u00a7 44 \u2014when assignee may maintain action for money had and received. Where the right to insurance money has been assigned pending adjustment of loss and the insurance company delivers money to its agents to adjust the loss, the assignee may recover from the agents in an action for money had and received.\n2. Assumpsit, action of, \u00a7 88 \u2014when evidence of assignment admissible. In an action for money had and received against agents of an insurance company for money received by them to pay a loss, evidence of an assignment of the benefits of the policy is admissible to show that the plaintiff, as assignee, is entitled in equity and good conscience to the money sent to the defendants.\n3. Assignments, \u00a7 31 \u2014name in which assignee may sue. Where an insurance company sends money to its agents to adjust a loss, an assignee of the insured\u2019s interest in the money is the equitable and bona fide owner of it and may maintain an action for it in his own name under section 18 of the Practice Act, J. & A. jf 8555, or in the name of his assignor for his use.\n4. Insurance, \u00a7 54 \u2014when evidence shows unconditional authority of agents to pay loss. In an action against agents of an insur-. anee company to recover money sent to them to pay a loss, correspondence between the agents and the company held to show that they received the money to pay to plaintiff without a condition.\n5. Instruction, \u00a7 92 \u2014when instruction to disregard incompetent testimony proper. Instructions to disregard the testimony of a witness admitted without objection, held proper where the instruction amounted to a withdrawal from consideration of the jury of confessedly incompetent evidence.\nG. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1539 \u2014when giving of abstract instruction harmless. In an action against agents of -an insurance company to recover money received by them to pay a loss, the giving of an instruction stating an abstract proposition of law as applied to suits against an insurance company, held improper but harmless.\n7. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1256 \u2014when party cannot complain of favorable instructions. Giving of an instruction more favorable to appellant than it would have been with the elements complained of omitted is harmless.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI * to XV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0153-01",
  "first_page_order": 179,
  "last_page_order": 180
}